Scar Quality of Skin Graft Borders: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded Evaluation.

Prominent scars may remain around the border of a mature skin graft (SG) at the interface of the SG with normal skin. The border of a SG may be constructed by either exactly approximating (A) or slightly overlapping (O) the edge of the SG on the wound margin. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether A or O affects the quality of the border scar of SGs applied to burn patients. This prospective study was a within-border design in which adult burn patients requiring SGs served as their own control. Half of each study border was fashioned using O and the immediately adjacent other half was made using A. We randomly assigned O or A to the proximal or distal halves of vertical borders and the medial and lateral halves of horizontal borders. Both halves of the study border were identically fixated with staples or sutures and were managed in the same fashion postoperatively. Blinded evaluations at 3, 6, and 12 months of O and A borders were performed using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), the observer component of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), and a global binary assessment of which half of the study border "looked better." Blinded patients also rated each half of the study border with a 10-point Likert scale. Values are reported as the mean ± SD or median (interquartile range), as appropriate. There were 34 borders studied in 15 subjects (46.7% female, age 29 [22,57], % TBSA burn 9.7 ± 5.3, and no inhalation injuries). Study borders were constructed at 7 (5,11) days postburn, had a total length of 12 (9.3,14.5) cm, and all involved split thickness SGs of thickness 13 (12,14)/1000th of an inch. Sheet grafts were applied in 27% and meshed grafts in 73%. SGs were applied immediately after excision in 75% or after allografting in 25%. Border scars matured between 3 and 12 months with reductions in total VSS from 8 (7,8) to 4 (3,6) for O borders (P < .001) and from 8 (7,9) to 4 (1,6) for A borders (P < .001). However, there were no significant differences between O and A borders in total VSS at 3 months (P = .165), 6 months (P = .602), and 12 months (P = .358) or in total OSAS at 3 months (P = .681), 6 months (P = .890), or 12 months (P = .601). At 12 months, 60% of O borders and 40% of A borders were globally rated as "better" (P = .258). There were no significant differences in the patients' subjective ratings of the O and A borders at 3 months (P = .920), 6 months (P = .960), and 12 months (P = .66). The scar quality at the border of a skin graft does not appear to be affected by the surgical technique used to construct the border at the time of grafting.

Construction of Skin Graft Seams in Burn Patients: A Prospective Randomized Double-Blinded Study.

Prominent scars and contractures may form along the seams between adjacent skin grafts. Seams may be constructed either by approximating the graft edges (AP), or by slightly overlapping the graft edges (OV), but it is not known if one technique creates a less conspicuous seam scar. The purpose of this study was to compare seam scars between seams constructed using the AP and OV techniques. This was a prospective within-patient and within-seam controlled study in adult burn patients treated at an American Burn Association-verified burn center. At skin graft application and seam construction, study seams were divided in half. One half of the seam was made by approximating the graft edges (AP group), while the other half was made by overlapping graft edges (OV group), before identical staple or suture fixation of each half. The AP or OV technique was randomly assigned to the medial or lateral ends of transversely oriented seams or to the proximal and distal ends of longitudinally oriented seams. At 3, 6, and 12 months post surgery, a blinded rater compared the two halves of each study seam scar using the Vancouver Scar Score (VSS). Subjects were also blinded and rated each half of their study seam using a 0 (poor) to 10 (excellent) visual analogue scale. Values are shown as the median (Q1-Q3). There were 44 study seams among 19 subjects (age 51 [36-70] years, with % TBSA burn 10 [7-18], % BSA full-thickness burn 8 [6-15]). Study seams were constructed at 10 (4-15) days post burn. Study seam length was 14.5 (10.3-18.0) cm, with 25% transversely oriented and 75% longitudinally oriented, and with 35/44 seams (80%) between meshed grafts and 9/44 (20%) between sheet grafts. There were no significant differences in any of the individual domain VSS scores (height, pliability, vascularity, and pigmentation) or total VSS score between AP and OV seams at 3, 6, and 12 months. At 12 months, among the 30 study seams that were visible to the subjects, the visual analogue scale score for the AP seams was 9 (8.5-10), which did not differ significantly from the OV seams (9.5 [8.45-10], P = .821). Overlapping or approximating adjacent skin grafts at the time of seam construction does not appear to affect final seam scar quality.

Late outcomes after grafting of the severely burned face: a quality improvement initiative.

Many approaches to surgical management of the severely burned face are described, but there are few objective outcome studies. The purpose of this study was to perform a detailed evaluation of the late outcomes in adult patients who have undergone grafting using a standardized surgical and rehabilitation approach for full-thickness (FT) facial burns to identify areas for improvement in the treatment strategy of authors. This was a prospective observational study in which patients who had undergone grafting for FT facial burns by the senior investigator at a regional burn centre between 1999 and 2010 were examined by a single evaluator. The surgical approach included tangential excision based on the facial aesthetic units, temporary cover with allograft then autografting with scalp skin preferentially, split grafts for the upper eyelid, and FT grafts for the lower eyelid. Rehabilitation included compression (uvex and or soft cloth), scar massage, and silicone gel sheeting. Of 35 patients with facial grafts, 14 subjects (age 43 ± 16 years with 22 ± 21% TBSA burns) returned for late follow-up at 40 ± 33 months (range, 5-91 months). A mean of four facial aesthetic units per patient were grafted (range, 1-9 units), with six full facial grafts performed. Scalp was used as donor in 10 of 14 cases. Scalp donor sites were well tolerated with minor alopecia visible in only one case although the donor site visibly extended slightly past the hairline in two cases. Color match with native skin was rated at 8.8 ± 0.8 of 10 when scalp skin was used compared with 7.5 ± 1.6 with other donor sites (P = .06). On the lip and chin, hypertrophic scars were significantly worse compared with the rest of the facial grafts (Vancouver scar scale 8 ± 2 vs 3 ± 1, P < .01). Sensory recovery was poor with overall moving two-point discrimination at 11 ± 3 mm (range, 4-15 mm), and monofilament light touch was 3.8 ± 0.6. Graft borders were significantly more elevated than graft seams. On the forehead, the most notable problem was a gap between the graft and hairlines of the frontal scalp and eyebrows (range, 0-40 mm). Grafted eyelids required one or more subsequent ectropion releases in the majority of cases. The most common problem for the nose was asymmetry of the nostril apertures. The most problematic late outcomes that the authors identified after facial grafting for FT facial burns included relatively poor sensory return, elevation of graft edges, eyelid ectropion, gaps between grafts and hairline, and marked hypertrophic scarring around the mouth and chin. The results indicate that possible areas for quality improvement include greater attention to the limits of scalp harvest, more attention to pressure application to graft borders and the lip and chin during rehabilitation, greater accuracy in excision and graft placement on the forehead to avoid gaps with the hairlines, and counseling of the patient regarding the high probability of diminished facial sensation.

The utility of the functional independence measure (FIM) in discharge planning for burn patients.

Determining burn patients' need for inpatient rehabilitation at discharge is difficult and an objective clinical indicator might aid in this decision. The functional independence measure (FIM) is a validated outcome measure that predicts the need for rehabilitation services. This study evaluated the utility of the FIM score for discharge planning in burn patients. A retrospective chart review and FIM score determination was performed on all major burn patients discharged from a regional adult burn centre between July 1, 1999 and June 30, 2000. From 164 adult burn patients discharged, 37 met the American Burn Association criteria for major burns. One patient had insufficient data. Therefore, 36 patients were studied (mean age 47.3 +/- 17.4 years, and mean body area burned 27.4 +/- 12.9%). All 17 patients with FIM scores greater than 110 were discharged home, and patients with FIM score of 110 or lower were discharged to another institution (rehabilitation hospital n = 14, other acute care hospital n = 4, or a nursing home n = 1) p < 0.0001. A discharge FIM score of 110 or lower was strongly associated with the need for inpatient rehabilitation, while a FIM score greater than 110 indicates the patient is independent enough to manage at home. Further prospective studies will be necessary to validate these findings.

Effective hand function assessment after burn injuries.

This study compared two methods of hand function assessment, the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) and the Test d'Evaluation des Membres Supérieurs des Personnes Agées (TEMPA) in 20 patients discharged from a regional adult burn center (1995-1999). Spearman's rank correlation coefficient analysis was used to compare the MHQ and TEMPA scores, with P <.05 considered significant. The MHQ revealed that 68% of patients reported hand function deterioration, mainly with the nondominant hand (65%). Activities of daily living (76%) and work (59%) were the most affected. According to the MHQ, patient satisfaction correlated with work performance (r =.66, P =.002), aesthetics (r =.64, P =.003), pain (r =.59, P =.008), and activities of daily living (r =.54, P =.017). The MHQ indicated more hand function deterioration than the TEMPA. There was a significant correlation between the MHQ and TEMPA total scores (r =.68, P =.001). This study supports using the MHQ to determine which patients would benefit from the more resource-consuming TEMPA.

Effects of enhanced patient education on compliance with silicone gel sheeting and burn scar outcome: a randomized prospective study.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether enhanced patient education increases compliance with silicone gel sheeting (SGS) on hypertrophic (HT) scars and to determine whether this results in any improvement in scar outcome. Outpatients with a HT burn scar were randomized to either a conventional education group (CEG), which received routine instruction on the use of SGS or to an enhanced education Group (EEG), which also received routine instruction, along with a detailed 5-page handout and a 26-minute videotape. The CEG (n = 12, 67% male, age 38 +/- 10 years) and the EEG (n = 13, 77% male, age 47 +/- 10 years) were followed monthly for 6 months. Subjects in the EEG wore SGS for 21.8 +/- 3.0 hr/day compared with only 10.1 +/- 7.5 hr/day of use in the CEG (P <.001). Scars in the EEG had significantly better Vancouver Scar Scale ratings for pigmentation (P =.02), height (P =.03), and pliability (P =.02) by 6 months. Patients in the EEG had significantly better subjective ratings for the parameters of scar itch (P =.01), color (P =.02), hardness (P =.01), and elevation (P =.01). Finally, scars in the EEG had significantly better ratings for border height (P =.002) and thickness (P =.01) at 6 months based on evaluation of digital photographs. Detailed multimedia patient education improves compliance with SGS and results in a better scar outcome.

Changes in subjective vs objective burn scar assessment over time: does the patient agree with what we think?

It is not known whether objective measurements of burn scar quality reflect, or even bear any relationship to, the patient's opinion of their scar. The purpose of this study was to determine whether any correlation exists between the rehabilitation therapist's rating of the scar using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and the patient's subjective opinion of their scar. A total of 37 scars in 20 adult patients (mean age, 34 +/- 13 years; 30% female; mean %TBSA burn, 16 +/- 11%) were evaluated at 3.1 +/- 1.9 months after injury (early assessment). Patients were asked to rate their own scar (question 1) and to rate how they perceive other people view the scar (question 2). A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to score the answers to both questions. A burn occupational therapist who was blinded to the VAS scores performed a VSS rating of the scar. These evaluations were repeated 1.5 years after injury (late assessment). At the early assessment, there was no correlation between the VSS score and VAS scores for question 1 (r =.291) or question 2 (r =.371). At the late assessment, there was significant improvement in the VSS score and the VAS score for question 2. Also, a significant correlation developed between the VSS score and the VAS score for question 1 (r =.646, P =.003) but not between the VSS score and VAS score for question 2 (r =.099). The VSS measurement of the scar bears no relationship to the patient's opinion of their scar early after a burn injury. As the scar improves over time, the patient's opinion of their scar appears to improve and shows better correlation with the VSS rating. Conversely, the patient's impression of what others think of the scar continues to bear no relationship to the VSS rating, suggesting that scar acceptance by the patient is incomplete despite objective improvement in the quality of the scar. Although the VSS was never intended to measure a patient's opinion of their scar, these preliminary findings emphasize the necessity of including a patient-centered subjective component to routine scar monitoring and assessment.

The effect of silicone gel sheets on perfusion of hypertrophic burn scars.

The mechanism of action of topical silicone gel sheets on hypertrophic scars is not well understood and their effect on the blood flow within hypertrophic scars has not been investigated. The purpose of this study was to examine whether application of silicone gel sheets produced any acute effects on blood flow in hypertrophic burn scars. Perfusion of hypertrophic scars and adjacent normal skin was measured using a laser Doppler with and without application of silicone gel sheets. Continuous measurements were made for 5 minutes before gel application, for 30 minutes during gel application and for 5 minutes following gel removal. Surface temperature of the scar was continuously monitored. An occupational therapist, blinded to the perfusion level, rated each scar using the Vancouver Scar Scale. Eighteen scars and adjacent control sites in sixteen adult burn patients (11 male, 5 female; mean age: 42 +/- 14 years) were evaluated. The mean scar age was 5.4 +/- 3.7 months. The mean Vancouver Scar Scale was 5.5 +/- 2.4. Hypertrophic scars demonstrated higher perfusion measurements at baseline compared to control areas (58.5 +/- 19.3 flux units vs 25.0 +/- 8.4 flux units; P < 0.001). Application of silicone sheeting gel did not significantly alter perfusion in either the hypertrophic scar or normal tissue from the baseline measurements. However, application of silicone gel sheeting did significantly increase the mean baseline surface temperature of the hypertrophic scar from 29 +/- 0.8 degrees C to 30.7 +/- 0.6 degrees C (P < 0.001). The mechanism of action of silicone gel sheeting probably does not involve an acute alteration in blood flow within the scar. However, surface temperature of the scar increased significantly following gel application, raising the possibility that temperature alteration is involved in the mechanism of action.